A bit harsh to terminate the account without a warning.
Just a thought...
If they were to issue a warning, then they are in effect telling the customer that if they (the customer) were to exercise their distance selling rights (to return goods) in future, then they wouldn't be able to buy from amazon any longer. Could this be interpreted as an attempt to stop a customer exercising their rights, and so be seen as unlawful?
I suppose it depends how regular an orderer (?) you are, and what stuff you tend to get, but I've ordered and received probably 300 items since I started on Amazon in 2004 and have only needed to return or get a refund for maybe ten things. It probably helps that I have favourite sellers, and that most of my orders are for CDs, DVDs and video games, but I've had lots of bigger items too like a counter top hob, a counter top oven, several PCs, an Xbox 360, a PS4, an electric guitar etc etc.
If I had to get refunds for so much stuff that it became regular I'd probably stop using Amazon, as I did eBay.
If they were to issue a warning, then they are in effect telling the customer that if they (the customer) were to exercise their distance selling rights (to return goods) in future, then they wouldn't be able to buy from amazon any longer. Could this be interpreted as an attempt to stop a customer exercising their rights, and so be seen as unlawful?
Nothing unlawful about it if they're not actually preventing the rights being exercised.
Nothing unlawful about it if they're not actually preventing the rights being exercised.
But they would be threatening further action (denial of future purchases) if those rights were exercised. That threat might intimidate a customer from exercising their rights.
Edit. If someone was intimidated in this way, or wanted to claim they had been, then they might try court action. Why would Amazon even take any risk of this and the bad publicity it might cause, when they can just refuse to deal in future, without giving any warning.
If they banned you and you owned a kindle would you still be able to buy books for it? Kindle won't let you buy from other sites.
I suppose the reason they don't say how many times you can return something without being banned is that the dodgy people who take advantage of the situation , maybe buying dvds, copying them and sending them back would just make sure they stayed inside the limit.
If they banned you and you owned a kindle would you still be able to buy books for it? Kindle won't let you buy from other sites.
.
You can buy any book you like from wherever you like and put it on a Kindle, which is why your Kindle has an email address to send books to (or simply plug it in and move it manually).
All you can't do is buy on another store on a Kindle itself, for obvious reasons (just like you can't buy a Costa coffee in a Starbucks).
Yeah but imagine if they tried that on in Marks and Spencers:
"You've returned too many pairs of socks this year. Leave and never come back"
It would really impact on their sales if they had a policy like that. I buy a lot of my presents from them at Christmas as I know there will be no problem if any of the stuff has to be exchanged/returned. They even give you gift receipts to make it easy for people to take the stuff back.
You can buy any book you like from wherever you like and put it on a Kindle, which is why your Kindle has an email address to send books to (or simply plug it in and move it manually).
All you can't do is buy on another store on a Kindle itself, for obvious reasons (just like you can't buy a Costa coffee in a Starbucks).
It would really impact on their sales if they had a policy like that. I buy a lot of my presents from them at Christmas as I know there will be no problem if any of the stuff has to be exchanged/returned. They even give you gift receipts to make it easy for people to take the stuff back.
But the OP has clearly done something that crosses the line, hence the ban.
M&S might not be so friendly if every week you went in and bought a dress in a dozen sizes, took them home and tried them on, then brought them back and returned the 11 that didn't fit.
M&S might not be so friendly if every week you went in and bought a dress in a dozen sizes, took them home and tried them on, then brought them back and returned the 11 that didn't fit.
And did that week after week.
I'm sure that is a problem for M&S. You get people who buy dresses/shoes/handbags etc for a night out, wear them once and take them back. Those costs must affect profits and result in higher pricing for everyone .
Why on earth have you sent back enough items for them to close your account? I haven't sent back any items because I've always been satisfied with the condition of my purchase.
Edit: I see you've returned about eight items.
I bought a sweater from Amazon in the colour Stone, which was definitely the shade shown in the picture, and when it arrived it was a mustard colour - almost orange - so I sent it back and got refunded. If I bought any other clothing from Amazon and it wasn't as described, I'd send it back, no question about it. So, I can see how a person would probably rack up a few returns. Having said that, you'd think after the first few not-as-described clothing items you'd learn.
I'm sure that is a problem for M&S. You get people who buy dresses/shoes/handbags etc for a night out, wear them once and take them back. Those costs must affect profits and result in higher pricing for everyone .
It most certainly used to be - even the staff used to do it. I used to work in the offices at M&S and it was a well-known thing. It was a while back though so I'm not up to date on it.
But they would be threatening further action (denial of future purchases) if those rights were exercised. That threat might intimidate a customer from exercising their rights.
It might, but I can't see what's unlawful about it. All that the Distance Selling Regulations require is that the retailer fulfills its obligations concerning a particular contract. The customer can't demand that the retailer also continues to do business with them, because no such right exists.
Generally, if you exercise your legal rights against someone else it can sour the future relationship!
I've heard of people getting banned from Amazon before - usually when they've been extracting the urine (one person had basically been using Amazon to get expensive text books for uni then returning them a week or two later).
Others I've seen have basically when they've wanted something ordered 2-3 of it in different colours or whatever and returned the ones they didn't want - something the distance selling regulations let you do but any retailer is free to decide they don't want a customer who does that repeatedly (for example if it's costing them too much).
I suspect the returns rate has to be high - I average about 1% usually due to faults, and exactly 2 orders that I changed my mind on over the last 5+ years and hundreds of orders.
A fellow workmate was worned by our local Argos store that he was returning to many items.
They showed him on their store computer that he had returned six items over a period of one year.
He was told they would refuse to serve him if he continued to return items.
I'm sure that is a problem for M&S. You get people who buy dresses/shoes/handbags etc for a night out, wear them once and take them back. Those costs must affect profits and result in higher pricing for everyone .
Completely off topic.
That reminds me of years ago when ATMs were thin on the ground, in one town, if you wanted cash and the bank wasn't open, one trick was to buy a item from M&S, take it to the returns/customer service and get a refund in cash!
Comments
There'll be some small-print somewhere, trust me
Just a thought...
If they were to issue a warning, then they are in effect telling the customer that if they (the customer) were to exercise their distance selling rights (to return goods) in future, then they wouldn't be able to buy from amazon any longer. Could this be interpreted as an attempt to stop a customer exercising their rights, and so be seen as unlawful?
If I had to get refunds for so much stuff that it became regular I'd probably stop using Amazon, as I did eBay.
I have had zero problems with Amazon ever.
Nothing unlawful about it if they're not actually preventing the rights being exercised.
Yeah but imagine if they tried that on in Marks and Spencers:
"You've returned too many pairs of socks this year. Leave and never come back"
But they would be threatening further action (denial of future purchases) if those rights were exercised. That threat might intimidate a customer from exercising their rights.
Edit. If someone was intimidated in this way, or wanted to claim they had been, then they might try court action. Why would Amazon even take any risk of this and the bad publicity it might cause, when they can just refuse to deal in future, without giving any warning.
If they had any way of recording that, you bet they would.
I suppose the reason they don't say how many times you can return something without being banned is that the dodgy people who take advantage of the situation , maybe buying dvds, copying them and sending them back would just make sure they stayed inside the limit.
You can buy any book you like from wherever you like and put it on a Kindle, which is why your Kindle has an email address to send books to (or simply plug it in and move it manually).
All you can't do is buy on another store on a Kindle itself, for obvious reasons (just like you can't buy a Costa coffee in a Starbucks).
But the OP has clearly done something that crosses the line, hence the ban.
M&S might not be so friendly if every week you went in and bought a dress in a dozen sizes, took them home and tried them on, then brought them back and returned the 11 that didn't fit.
And did that week after week.
Only about 3 or 4 of the books on my Kindle are from Amazon - I'm a very promiscuous ebook buyer
I bought a sweater from Amazon in the colour Stone, which was definitely the shade shown in the picture, and when it arrived it was a mustard colour - almost orange - so I sent it back and got refunded. If I bought any other clothing from Amazon and it wasn't as described, I'd send it back, no question about it. So, I can see how a person would probably rack up a few returns. Having said that, you'd think after the first few not-as-described clothing items you'd learn.
Edit:
It most certainly used to be - even the staff used to do it. I used to work in the offices at M&S and it was a well-known thing. It was a while back though so I'm not up to date on it.
It might, but I can't see what's unlawful about it. All that the Distance Selling Regulations require is that the retailer fulfills its obligations concerning a particular contract. The customer can't demand that the retailer also continues to do business with them, because no such right exists.
Generally, if you exercise your legal rights against someone else it can sour the future relationship!
Others I've seen have basically when they've wanted something ordered 2-3 of it in different colours or whatever and returned the ones they didn't want - something the distance selling regulations let you do but any retailer is free to decide they don't want a customer who does that repeatedly (for example if it's costing them too much).
I suspect the returns rate has to be high - I average about 1% usually due to faults, and exactly 2 orders that I changed my mind on over the last 5+ years and hundreds of orders.
They showed him on their store computer that he had returned six items over a period of one year.
He was told they would refuse to serve him if he continued to return items.
That reminds me of years ago when ATMs were thin on the ground, in one town, if you wanted cash and the bank wasn't open, one trick was to buy a item from M&S, take it to the returns/customer service and get a refund in cash!
You'd have to use a different card, with a different name, from a different computer, on a different IP address.
I doubt Amazon are stupid.